About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
changes or not his position. but the conversation changed because with george w. bush, he was for immigration reform with a path to citizenship. immediately after that we got the rejection that would have given two million students the possibility of staying. then it was replicated in alabama and georgia. so instead of discussing the possibility of what to do with 11 million undocumented immigrants, here we have incredibly tough laws on immigrations and the approach changed completely. nowadays we're discussing only dream map probably or defer action by president barack obama when the conversation should have been much, much wider. >> i remember ronald regan was quite positive about immigration. he was quite pro hispanic. he gave amnesty the 3 million. >> yes. republicans were doing great. as you know, reagan used to say that latinos are republicans, they just don't know it. >> well, he did say that. he did say you have common values in regard to the family, to religion. >> abortion. >> abortion. issues on that. >> gay marriage. they're very conservative. that's basically
many more lives and fighting so much useless battles. that was the disaster of the george w. bush administration. seems like romney is intent on taking us straight back to that. tavis: if he were sitting in the moderator's chair to run morrowt your political ideology aside, what do think the american people need to here with the issues that matter to it and the issues that you write about in "the price of civilization", and what would you like to see the two of them go at it? what would you like to see front and center tomorrow night in this conversation? what kinds of questions would you deposing to them? >> of course, the most important issue for the american people is how we are going to create sustainable and fair and equitable recovery, a recovery that and really embraces all of the people including people who are very poor and are hurting. so i would ask mitt romney how in the midst of all of this, when we do not begin to have the revenues that we need when we are collecting the smallest share of our national income in taxes since the 1940's, why mr. romney, do you propose a
, and then they allowed him to purchase a bit in a single debate. it was only because george h.w. bush and clinton pushed for his inclusion. four years later, ross perot runs for president again. he had $29 million in taxpayer funds. 79% of the american people wanted to see him in the debates. yet, he was excluded. this time, the candidates wanted to keep him out. bob dole was desperate to keep him out of the debate because he thought that ross perot would take votes away from him. bill clinton did not want anyone to watch the debates. he wanted a non event. bill clinton of the two -- agreed to include ross perot on the condition that one of the debates was canceled, and the other was scheduled opposite the world series of baseball, and there were no follow-up questions. that is what the american people got. exactly as president clinton wanted, by design, the lowest debate audience in history. who took the heat? not the candidates. the polls after the debate showed 50% of the public blamed the commission. only 13% blamed president clinton, 5% blame the bob dole. the role that the commission played along
an election, i mean the only one you can really argue that did was george w. bush and al fore in 2000, even gerald ford a story people like to tell, ford fell more behind before the debate that doesn't mean the debates couldn't be a decider in this election, of course they could, but i think we should to into it with fairly low expectations of how much they will move the polls until we see otherwise. >> rose: exactly. point well-taken. on the other hand, one of the things that was beginning to creep in was this was not winnable, i don't think people came out of last night thinking it wasn't winnable, do you? >> i agree. >> i think in a macro sense of three big things he accomplished, he, for a good long while, at least for the next debate he eliminated this concern among republicans this thing isn't winnable. and two is, i think he showed people what he is like. >> rose: right. >> more than he ever had. he didn't do it at the convention well enough, it is hard to do in fizzing, it is hard to do even on this program, because the audience, the prepressure of the debate i think he really did a
's a critically important point and one having troubled with george w. bush in 2000-2004 and going to places along the gold coast or the red neck riveria whatever you want to call it in florida where there are new areas of republican voters, we would fly somewhere or go on a bus for two hours and say why are we here and carl row will say republican registration is this and we'll pump it up to this. dave talks about florida. if we can get 59% hispanic votes or over 60 there's no way romney can win the state of florida if we tweaked the hispanic vote to that number. these successful campaigns are doing exactly what johns talking about. they know exactly where their voters are, they know how to dial up certain demographic groups to tweak the final number in that state. the obama team is obsessed with that. >> it is one of the advantages they have that cuts against all of this other stuff. >> rose: can he overcome that murphy. >> i'm recently reformed political consultant so nobody believes more in the gadget than i do. it's a little overrated like all processed things. when you have the incumbent a
george w. bush for 9/11. well, some people do. some people say he had a warning he should have been paying more attention to al qaeda. i suppose. if you want to make both claims then you're at least being consistent. but you can't say that 9/11 was a sucker punch when -- but we should have known everything about what was going to happen around the embassy in libya. doesn't wash. >> rose: you travel around the world, you were in china recently. what do the leaders of other countries think about america today? what do they want that they don't see? what do they see that they like? >> yeah. good question. hard to generalize, charlie. it would depend region to region. you know, right now it seems to me that -- i don't sense a big clamor around and about america today. >> rose: right. >> rose: >> if you look at the world, everyone's so internally focused charlie. china's internally focused on its problems, the european union is internally focused on its problems, russia's -- putin's trying to stay ahead of the democratic revolution in his own country. this is not a big foreign policy mom
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)